Axiom: Christian God exists and the Bible is true. page 3

It’s funny to see that even religious people among the same faith can’t seem to agree with each other. And that goes for Muslims, Christians, Jewish, etc. And you people expect others to take your believes seriously that way?

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

It’s funny to see that even religious people among the same faith can’t seem to agree with each other. And that goes for Muslims, Christians, Jewish, etc. And you people expect others to take your believes seriously that way?

You talk as if all atheists agree with each other.

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

Originally posted by Azolf:

Originally posted by 422537:

Paul said that because, for that particular command he didn’t have a command from the Lord, hence the “I do not have a command from the lord”

In other passages he clearly doesn’t say this, but he did say, as I have already demonstrated He speaks from revelation from the Lord, not from human origin. Read it in context, he was directly referring to the notion of marriage in your particular quote.

EDIT: You still have not answered my question, do you think that the epistles where not instructed by Jesus?

Are you saying the Apostle Paul was infallible? Did not Paul himself say that he was a wretch, a chief of sinners, and that God’s strength is made perfect in our weakness. Paul may have been more on the ball than the pastor down the street, but he covered plenty of doctrine that, according to the Gospels, Jesus said nothing about.

Are you a follower of Jesus, or a follower of Paul. Paul himself was concerned about this, saying, “I’m glad I only Baptized a few of you, because now you’re all arguing over who baptized who, don’t you know that we are all of one Spirit?”

Likewise, when performing miracles, the people bowed to Paul, and he said, “We are men of like devises, the same passions.”

I would go so far as to say that God is present in these very writings, because here we are having a conversation under the name of Jesus in a little corner of cyberspace… but sin is still present on both our parts. No ministry is untainted. God be praised that He uses us for the greater good of His Providence despite ourselves.

Unless any of pauls writings directly conflict with Christ’s teachings (waiting for someone to make an attempt), I see no reason to believe that his message is infallible. He himself? yes of course aren’t we all, but if he is honest in what he says about revelations, his writings are the instructions of a higher authority, excluding scripture where he highlights his own opinions.

Of course. Despite conflict, God sees the heart.

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

My point remains – all atheists don’t agree.

Everyone has common agreements, even among Christians. You talk as if you have somehow refuted my point.

Originally posted by 422537:

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

My point remains – all atheists don’t agree.

Everyone has common agreements, even among Christians. You talk as if you have somehow refuted my point.

Let me help you understand the difference.
Atheists, they (we) are just men and women who question stuff. Arguing among us is something expected.

YOU, on the other hand, are supposed to follow the ONE TRUE WORD OF THE ONE TRUE GOD. Shouldn’t you be united and in agreement by definition? I rest my case.

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

Originally posted by 422537:

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

My point remains – all atheists don’t agree.

Everyone has common agreements, even among Christians. You talk as if you have somehow refuted my point.

Let me help you understand the difference.
Atheists, they (we) are just men and women who question stuff. Arguing among us is something expected.

YOU, on the other hand, are supposed to follow the ONE TRUE WORD OF THE ONE TRUE GOD. Shouldn’t you be united and in agreement by definition? I rest my case.

To answer your questions, yes we should. But it’s not a headline shocker that we’re not. The bible talks of several reasons why Christians may not agree among each other.

Originally posted by 422537:

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

Originally posted by 422537:

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

My point remains – all atheists don’t agree.

Everyone has common agreements, even among Christians. You talk as if you have somehow refuted my point.

Let me help you understand the difference.
Atheists, they (we) are just men and women who question stuff. Arguing among us is something expected.

YOU, on the other hand, are supposed to follow the ONE TRUE WORD OF THE ONE TRUE GOD. Shouldn’t you be united and in agreement by definition? I rest my case.

To answer your questions, yes we should. But it’s not a headline shocker that we’re not. The bible talks of several reasons why Christians may not agree among each other.

So, your God inspired book is ambiguous and misleading. Now, that’s all you have. And your God will pass judgement on you based on how well you learned that book. And that makes sense to you because…?

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

Originally posted by 422537:

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

Originally posted by 422537:

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

My point remains – all atheists don’t agree.

Everyone has common agreements, even among Christians. You talk as if you have somehow refuted my point.

Let me help you understand the difference.
Atheists, they (we) are just men and women who question stuff. Arguing among us is something expected.

YOU, on the other hand, are supposed to follow the ONE TRUE WORD OF THE ONE TRUE GOD. Shouldn’t you be united and in agreement by definition? I rest my case.

To answer your questions, yes we should. But it’s not a headline shocker that we’re not. The bible talks of several reasons why Christians may not agree among each other.

So, your God inspired book is ambiguous and misleading. Now, that’s all you have. And your God will pass judgement on you based on how well you learned that book. And that makes sense to you because…?

I was actually expecting you to say something else but nevermind.

Please point out the scripture about God passing judgment on us for not learning the book well. I’d like to read it.

Originally posted by 422537:

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

Originally posted by 422537:

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

Originally posted by 422537:

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

My point remains – all atheists don’t agree.

Everyone has common agreements, even among Christians. You talk as if you have somehow refuted my point.

Let me help you understand the difference.
Atheists, they (we) are just men and women who question stuff. Arguing among us is something expected.

YOU, on the other hand, are supposed to follow the ONE TRUE WORD OF THE ONE TRUE GOD. Shouldn’t you be united and in agreement by definition? I rest my case.

To answer your questions, yes we should. But it’s not a headline shocker that we’re not. The bible talks of several reasons why Christians may not agree among each other.

So, your God inspired book is ambiguous and misleading. Now, that’s all you have. And your God will pass judgement on you based on how well you learned that book. And that makes sense to you because…?

I was actually expecting you to say something else but nevermind.

Please point out the scripture about God passing judgment on us for not learning the book well. I’d like to read it.

Your book says that no one will enter Heaven unless going through Jesus. True or false? Also, the only source of your Jesus’ existence, teachings, life, etc is that ambiguous, misleading book. Also, the only book of reference as to which God’s son was Jesus is the Old Testement. So, in order to believe in Jesus obviously you need to know what the Old and New Testements are about, commonly known as the Bible. So, no biblical understanding → No Jesus → bad judgement → Hell.
quod erat demonstrandum

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

All atheists agree that all religions are not to be taken seriously on an equal amount. You could say that there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a hardcore atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn’t deny that some kind of god may exist. A hardcore atheist says that God doesn’t exist. That’s about it. How many denominations does Christianity alone have? And besides, atheism isn’t a religion it is a simple philosophical movement.

Atheism (that is, the kind you’re expressing in this thread, anti-theistic atheism) is no ‘simple philosophical movement’, it’s an ideology. One that tends to take a reductionist view of religion in order to feed into its inherent prejudices about how religious people think and act.

Then,

Let me help you understand the difference.
Atheists, they (we) are just men and women who question stuff. Arguing among us is something expected.

YOU, on the other hand, are supposed to follow the ONE TRUE WORD OF THE ONE TRUE GOD. Shouldn’t you be united and in agreement by definition? I rest my case.

No, arguing among human beings is something expected. Human beings disagree, they reason over points of issue. The bible, even if inspired by God (which is the Ax of this thread btw) was transmitted by human beings. So it doesn’t surprise me that the language is often ambiguous. You seem to have this idea about how religious people are supposed to think because of some dogmatic doctrine they all follow, but the reality contradicts that – people are rational creatures who engage in healthy (and sometimes unhealthy) debate. Yes, even religious people are or can be rational.

Jantonaitis, It’s an ideology based on something very simple, that if you don’t have proof or evidence for your claim, then you have nothing. It’s very simple, anything that is conjured without evidence can be rejected without evidence. You don’t have any harder evidence that Jesus existed over Hercules. You don’t have evidence that the God of Abraham is any more a god than Zeus or Ra or Odin was. That’s a fact

Now, debating can happen between human beings, true. But debate on something that is supposed to be dogmatic is something like an oxymoron. Is like debating why blue is called blue. Your Bible is supposed to be the Absolute Word of a Divine being. What exactly do you have to debate that causes Christians do be divided in so many fractions? You all supposedly follow the word of the one true god. So, either your god is very mysterious and weird or man made. Obviously you will say ‘he works in mysterious ways’. No, science proves that if a god creator exists he/she/it works in mathematical ways. And mathematics is absolute and well defined. Your God isn’t.

It’s been a long philosophical debate defining what constitutes as ‘evidence’. It’s not that simple. Are you familiar with positivism?

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

Jantonaitis, It’s an ideology based on something very simple, that if you don’t have proof or evidence for your claim, then you have nothing. It’s very simple, anything that is conjured without evidence can be rejected without evidence. You don’t have any harder evidence that Jesus existed over Hercules. You don’t have evidence that the God of Abraham is any more a god than Zeus or Ra or Odin was. That’s a fact

Now, debating can happen between human beings, true. But debate on something that is supposed to be dogmatic is something like an oxymoron. Is like debating why blue is called blue. Your Bible is supposed to be the Absolute Word of a Divine being. What exactly do you have to debate that causes Christians do be divided in so many fractions? You all supposedly follow the word of the one true god. So, either your god is very mysterious and weird or man made. Obviously you will say ‘he works in mysterious ways’. No, science proves that if a god creator exists he/she/it works in mathematical ways. And mathematics is absolute and well defined. Your God isn’t.

Number one, I am not a christian. I’m just trying to stick to the AX of this thread, something you’ve consistantly ignored to trumpet a tune everyone in SD has heard hundreds of times before…you hate religion. You think logic (bluntly defined) is almighty. WE GET IT. But the AX says bible is inspired by God, so it is. Get your head around that.

Number two, all that stuff about logic? Yeah, what you’re espousing is called positivism, a social ideology that was discarded decades ago when it was discovered, among other problems, that there’s like, hundreds of things people believe in that can’t be empirically measured. Not just religion.

It’s more than possible to debate over supposedly dogmatic issues so long as you observe a certain decorum, which is not the same as civility. The Jewish philosophers like Maimonides were able to debate the nature of God and their discussions helped codify Judaism. Of course, in that situation, it would be rather difficult to debate with someone who came from the belief that there is no god and continually reinforced that position through the debate. Therefore it’s the combination of having a flexible mind that at the same time can stay within the cohesive internal logic of the ideology in question, in the example I made, of Judaism.

Now, in case I didn’t make myself absolutely clear before, I dislike being made out as a Christian just because I defend certain aspects of it. Don’t assume the guy defending religion is much of a fan of religion himself…perhaps he just fucking despises the no-nothing, sycophantic Richard Dawkins internet fanboys moreso than the Christians.

1) “you hate religion”

No, i don’t hate religion. I don’t hate god/jesus either. Since i don’t know whether he existed or not and since i don’t think that he was god hating him is just pointless. I don’t hate God, the real God, IF such a being exists. Why would i, did he/she/it ever did something to me? I simply ignore whether he/she/it exists because i don’t have evidence and also my life won’t change dramatically by saying “oh, he/she/it is real”.

2) I think i know what i espouse better than you do, so please stick to the facts and don’t make things up. What i believe is that unless you bring something tangible to present in an argument, then your argument is invalid. This is basic stuff about how to have a debate. Schools teach it. Except for religious schools, i guess. I am not the type to want measurements. As long as it has a “place” a logical place, i will see its value.

3) Making philosophy about “God” is nothing new, Plato did it too. You know what he believed? He believed that God is part of the world of Ideas, the perfect world and that God doesn’t transform to amaze humans or he doesn’t trick them. You know, exactly the opposite from what the God of Abraham did? To be honest the God of Abraham and the Ancient Greek Gods are so similar. They both interefere in battles, politics, everything.

4) Again, maybe you should stick to facts instead of making stuff up. I am not a Dawkins fan in any way. I haven’t even heard his views and ideas. I don’t need someone else to hold my hand while forming my opinions about things.

So, now that i made the mistake of calling you a Christian and you spewed your ignorant, labeling venom back at me i guess we are even.

No, i don’t hate religion. I don’t hate god/jesus either. Since i don’t know whether he existed or not and since i don’t think that he was god hating him is just pointless. I don’t hate God, the real God, IF such a being exists. Why would i, did he/she/it ever did something to me? I simply ignore whether he/she/it exists because i don’t have evidence and also my life won’t change dramatically by saying “oh, he/she/it is real”.

If you were content to ignore it, as I expect the majority of atheists are, you would not see fit to constantly trumpet your anti-theist views and derail threads so you can swing your cock around.

2) I think i know what i espouse better than you do, so please stick to the facts and don’t make things up. What i believe is that unless you bring something tangible to present in an argument, then your argument is invalid. This is basic stuff about how to have a debate. Schools teach it. Except for religious schools, i guess. I am not the type to want measurements. As long as it has a “place” a logical place, i will see its value.

Yeah? Nothing you’ve said so far tells me you know what you’re talking about. For one thing, debate is a matter of opinions, not capital-f Facts. For another, you wield logic like a hammer, like it’s simple and straightforward. It isn’t. Finally, before you try to teach me how to debate, you might want to recognize that one addresses the argument in a debate – both Tuje and I have pointed out that a discussion about ‘evidence’ and ‘facts’ is a more complicated and heavily philosophical then you seem to be comfortable with…oh, I’m sure you dish out an adequate, PHIL 101 understanding of Plato, bravo. But as they say, a bit of learning is a dangerous thing…it gives false confidence to fools. Nor does a rigorous understanding of philosophy fit together too well with the ridiculous universalist assumption that all religion is bullshit and all religious people are bullshit artists, as your posts continually insist.

If I seem upset, it is because your attitude on this thread and others shows a persistant disrespect for religious people, as well a certainty that logic is an alien concept to them. It’s a mindset I’ve encountered many times before and I have no patience for it. If you’re doing it unwittingly, here’s your wake-up call. If you’re doing it deliberately…goodbye.

If you were content to ignore it, as I expect the majority of atheists are, you would not see fit to constantly trumpet your anti-theist views and derail threads so you can swing your cock around.

Pay attention to what i write. I said i ignore god. Not religion. Religion has caused a lot of trouble in the past and still does. Any ideology that can turn you into a killer because of fanaticism is dangerous. And religion has that potential. Keeping it at check is not bad. Besides, did i miss the part where this thread had some kind of activity and i took it OT?

Yeah? Nothing you’ve said so far tells me you know what you’re talking about. For one thing, debate is a matter of opinions, not capital-f Facts. For another, you wield logic like a hammer, like it’s simple and straightforward. It isn’t. Finally, before you try to teach me how to debate, you might want to recognize that one addresses the argument in a debate – both Tuje and I have pointed out that a discussion about ‘evidence’ and ‘facts’ is a more complicated and heavily philosophical then you seem to be comfortable with…oh, I’m sure you dish out an adequate, PHIL 101 understanding of Plato, bravo. But that bit of learning doesn’t fit together too well with the assumption that religion is bullshit and religious people are bullshit artists, as your posts continually insist.

If I seem upset, it is because your attitude on this thread and others shows a persistant disrespect for religious people, as well a certainty that logic is an alien concept to them. It’s a mindset I’ve encountered many times before and I have no patience for it. If you’re doing it unwittingly, here’s your wake-up call. If you’re doing it deliberately…goodbye.

Oh, so much agression and false accusations, where to begin?

“But that bit of learning doesn’t fit together too well with the assumption that religion is bullshit and religious people are bullshit artists, as your posts continually insist.”

My posts don’t insist on something like that, they insist on making it clear that Jesus isn’t a proven fact. Oh, proven fact i guess is capital-f Fact.

“both Tuje and I have pointed out that a discussion about ‘evidence’ and ‘facts’ is a more complicated and heavily philosophical then you seem to be comfortable with”

Evidence and facts are not a matter of opinion. Neither is logical thinking. The basis for propositional logic was laid down some 2000 years ago by a guy named Aristotle. Empirically there is nothing to suggest that the events of the Bible happened or that Jesus was a god. Bible talks about a great number of people who saw Jesus after he has risen from the dead. How come those people can’t be found anywhere outside the Bible? Remember, the Bible also speaks of dragons and unicorns. Let’s say that dragons are dinosaur fossils. But unicorns?

“it is because your attitude on this thread and others shows a persistant disrespect for religious people, as well a certainty that logic is an alien concept to them”

That argument is only half true. I don’t generalize, which seems to be a practice of yours however since you seem to like to generalize my ideas and whatnot. I do believe that for some religious people the idea of logic is completely lost to them. BUT there are many people who are religious and have my respect because they don’t simply look at their faith and disregard all other things.

Any ideology that can turn you into a killer because of fanaticism is dangerous. And religion has that potential. Keeping it at check is not bad.

Any ideology that turns otherwise reasonable people into fanatics is dangerous. Religion has that potential. So does anti-theistic atheism. Keeping it in check? Sure. But not by making reductionist arguments about it and broad appeals to supposed self-evident truths, whether they be God or Facts.

Evidence and facts are not a matter of opinion. Neither is logical thinking. The basis for propositional logic was laid down some 2000 years ago by a guy named Aristotle.

Really? Never heard of the guy.

Name-dropping doesn’t impress me. It just tells me you like to use it for effect rather than promote understanding.

Evidence is most certainly a matter of opinion. If you’d read Aristotle, you’d know that he specifically points that out, that what some people view as legitimate proofs isn’t proof at all to other people. He also makes it clear that this difference doesn’t imply one group of people is more ignorant or learned than another for accepting different proofs. Logical thinking is also a matter of opinion. You think it’s logical thinking that the God of the Old Testament is so different from the God of the NT that it automatically discounts Christianity. To me, that says you don’t know the various theological workarounds that people have come up with to explain the discrepancy. It also tells me you’re apparently unaware that the Jesus propaganda guys like Azolf promote about a loving God is only a small part of what Jesus said. There’s plenty of OT wrath in the NT; it’s just been sugar-coated to make messianic Judaism sound more appealing.

Empirically there is nothing to suggest that the events of the Bible happened or that Jesus was a god. Bible talks about a great number of people who saw Jesus after he has risen from the dead. How come those people can’t be found anywhere outside the Bible? Remember, the Bible also speaks of dragons and unicorns. Let’s say that dragons are dinosaur fossils. But unicorns?

Empirically, sure. What’s your point? If we’re talking about the historical accuracy of Jesus in the bible – as in the other active religion thread – then empiricism has every right to smash these fables. But if we’re talking in context of religion, and religious belief, I see no reason for it unless someone tries to make a play for creationism. The account in the bible, which makes no sense empirically, can nevertheless be accepted on faith, and reason has its place too…in tweezing out the odd bits that don’t make sense within the larger belief structure. That is, that coherent ideologies aren’t built on logical premisses, but on beliefs and assumptions about the world. You have to be able to accept those large assumptions for the sake of debating within that enclosed system (much like an AX thread), but the details, specifically the meaning of such stories, can be reasoned and questioned. If you’re unwilling to accept those terms then you’re left to criticize the system as a whole, from an outsider’s position, and it’s almost inevitable that you’re going to over-generalize and simplify in order to tackle it. It’s also inevitable that your position will become untenable because the adherents of that belief system will regard you as inimicably hostile.

That argument is only half true. I don’t generalize, which seems to be a practice of yours however since you seem to like to generalize my ideas and whatnot. I do believe that for some religious people the idea of logic is completely lost to them. BUT there are many people who are religious and have my respect because they don’t simply look at their faith and disregard all other things.

Nah, you do. Your understanding of theology is faulty but you’re unwilling to admit it. Dragons and unicorns? Maybe in revelations, or the prophets’ symbolic nonsense in the OT. Again though, it has no bearing. You bring it up for effect, to ridicule. If I were a Christian, as you painted me, I’d be insulted. As it is I’m just irritated by irrelevant anti-theist talking points.

Religious people who are willing to balance their faith with a certain rational flexibility of mind have my respect too. But if i’m debating theology it’s not like I can demand balance from my opponents without doing it myself. When you enter a faith-based debate, you have to be willing to give up that high-and-mighty empiricism, otherwise, what are you doing there except attacking religion? It’s why empiricists annoy me oftentimes more than hidebound Christians, because they make ideological demands on the Christians but they’re not willing to accept similar demands themselves. Thus such arguments go nowhere.

I’ll leave this on a final point: You’ve heard the phrase ‘nothing is sacred’? It’s commonly used by people right before they go on to loudly criticize what someone else considers sacred. It’s an absurd idea because in fact, everything – well, many things – are sacred. Everyone has certain beliefs that logic does not enter, even if it’s something as simple as the axiom “I am never wrong”. There is no point in trying to dispel these irrational beliefs, but they should at least be recognized, both by the people who hold them, and the people debating with them.

Any ideology that turns otherwise reasonable people into fanatics is dangerous. Religion has that potential. So does anti-theistic atheism. Keeping it in check? Sure. But not by making reductionist arguments about it and broad appeals to supposed self-evident truths, whether they be God or Facts.

Have you seen many atheist organizations acting outside the law to burn churches, buildings, kill people for being religious, etc? Atheism can’t turn you into a fanatic. Atheism doesn’t promise you anything. Religious does. Holy Wars, Crusades, KKK, all very well documented. Also, just to make sure that i won’t heat that ridiculous argument, no, communism and the crimes of Mao and Stallin aren’t atheistic acts. They didn’t kill in the name of atheism, they killed so that their communist parties would continue to rule in a dictatoric way.

Evidence is most certainly a matter of opinion. If you’d read Aristotle, you’d know that he specifically points that out, that what some people view as legitimate proofs isn’t proof at all to other people. He also makes it clear that this difference doesn’t imply one group of people is more ignorant or learned than another for accepting different proofs. Logical thinking is also a matter of opinion. You think it’s logical thinking that the God of the Old Testament is so different from the God of the NT that it automatically discounts Christianity. To me, that says you don’t know the various theological workarounds that people have come up with to explain the discrepancy. It also tells me you’re apparently unaware that the Jesus propaganda guys like Azolf promote about a loving God is only a small part of what Jesus said. There’s plenty of OT wrath in the NT; it’s just been sugar-coated to make messianic Judaism sound more appealing.

Again, you probably are too preoccupied to formulate your opinions that you don’t pay much attention to my opinions. I never said that looking at the difference between New and Old Testement is proof that Christianity is fake. In fact i challenge you to find me a quote where i said such a thing. What i present as evidence are the ridiculous errors between the Word of God when it comes to matters or nature and morals compared to scientifically PROVEN FACTS and also today’s world morals. Eg, Isaiah refers to the world as a circle, a flat object. Also, God numerous times told Israelites to conquer other nations and enslave them, slavery is however today morally wrong.

Religious people who are willing to balance their faith with a certain rational flexibility of mind have my respect too. But if i’m debating theology it’s not like I can demand balance from my opponents without doing it myself. When you enter a faith-based debate, you have to be willing to give up that high-and-mighty empiricism, otherwise, what are you doing there except attacking religion? It’s why empiricists annoy me oftentimes more than hidebound Christians, because they make ideological demands on the Christians but they’re not willing to accept similar demands themselves. Thus such arguments go nowhere.

So, suppose that we had an argument with Neo Nazis who felt that blood purity and a superior race should exist, simply because some mad man told them to do so. This analogy isn’t meant to equate Christians to Neo Nazis, i just want to make a point. Wouldn’t you ask for the Neo-Nazis empirical evidence that a superior race exists? Or would you simply skip by and let them believe whatever they want, regardless of potential harm?

Providing they only act on their beliefs within their own group, there is no harm posed by neo-nazis. Nor by any group with beliefs outside of the ‘norm’.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Evidence and facts are not a matter of opinion. Neither is logical thinking. The basis for propositional logic was laid down some 2000 years ago by a guy named Aristotle.

Really? Never heard of the guy.

Name-dropping doesn’t impress me. It just tells me you like to use it for effect rather than promote understanding.

Evidence is most certainly a matter of opinion. If you’d read Aristotle, you’d know that he specifically points that out, that what some people view as legitimate proofs isn’t proof at all to other people. He also makes it clear that this difference doesn’t imply one group of people is more ignorant or learned than another for accepting different proofs. Logical thinking is also a matter of opinion.

Aristotle defined logic as new and necessary knowledge. It’s not a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Providing they only act on their beliefs within their own group, there is no harm posed by neo-nazis. Nor by any group with beliefs outside of the ‘norm’.

Yes, however what happens when those groups feel that their norm is being offended?

They excise the individual who is trying to press that individual’s ideals upon all of them.

meh, screw this.

You leap to extreme comparisons, just like any other anti-theist fanatic. Neo-nazis, unicorns, Holy wars, etc. You pretend religion is totally to blame for what are essentially social problems (slavery, like the islamic veil, was a product of Semitic tribalism, that became doctrinated over time), conveniently ignoring the fact that it’s because of religious institutions that led to the abolition of slavery. Then you bowdlerize Aristotle to suit a positivist agenda. I’m done.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

meh, screw this.

You leap to extreme comparisons, just like any other anti-theist fanatic. Neo-nazis, unicorns, Holy wars, etc. You pretend religion is totally to blame for what are essentially social problems (slavery, like the islamic veil, was a product of Semitic tribalism, that became doctrinated over time), conveniently ignoring the fact that it’s because of religious institutions that led to the abolition of slavery. Then you bowdlerize Aristotle to suit a positivist agenda. I’m done.

So, just out of curiosity, what was your business here? You said time and time again that you are not a Christian. So, you weren’t here to discuss the Bible as the OP intended. You weren’t an atheist (obviously) so you weren’t here to point out the Bible’s fable like i am. You are not even a moderator wanting to tell me that my points don’t belong here because they are opposite to the AX thread.
(for the record, i am new here so i wasn’t aware about what AX’s thread are about until after the OP started quoting my posts. Since he didn’t ask me to leave i thought it was okay to stay and argue. Had he done otherwise, i would have left. In fact, he still can. The moment he says that i shouldn’t be here i will leave too. See, unlike your misconceived ideas i have no problem admiting my mistakes.)
Now, where was i? Oh yeah, what was your business here? Admit it, you were just here to feed your ego by arguing with me. Since you like to label me even though i said not too i will do the same too. Golden Rule, right? You say that you are not a Christian. I will take you on your word about that and not call you a liar. Instead i will say that you are a believer of some religion which is connected to Christianity. A Jew, maybe?